An empirical analysis of the determinants of technology ...

An empirical analysis of thedeterminants of technologyroadmap utilization

Jung Hoon Lee1, Robert Phaal2 and Chihoon Lee3

1Graduate School of Information, Yonsei University, 134 Shinchon-dong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul,120-749, Korea. [email protected] for Technology Management, Institute for Manufacturing, Engineering Department, Universityof Cambridge, 17 Charles Babbage Road, Cambridge CB3 0FS, UK. [email protected] School of Information, Yonsei University, 134 Shinchon-dong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul,120-749, Korea. [email protected]

For many years now, firms have managed their research and development (R&D) byapplying various approaches drawn from the discipline of technology roadmapping (TRM).The underlying rationale of these roadmapping approaches is to align firms’ product andtechnology developments with their business goals. By visually representing firms’ technol-ogy strategy, roadmaps support intra-firm communication and facilitate the coordination ofstrategic decisions and activities within the technology management domain. Most previ-ously published research on TRMs has focused on the design and implementation ofroadmapping processes; that is, relatively few empirical or quantitative studies describe theuse and evaluation of roadmapping techniques. This paper seeks to address this gap byconducting a survey of 186 different R&D units within stock market-listed companies inKorea that have implemented TRM. The paper attempts to identify the antecedent factorsbehind firms’ successful use of roadmaps, further identifying correlations between theseantecedent factors through an analysis of the R&D units. It also empirically highlights theseantecedent factors by empirically analyzing and verifying correlations between roadmaputilization and R&D performance.

1. Introduction

The technological innovations that firms makeaffect both their short-term business perform-

ance and their long-run sustainability. It is particu-larly important for companies operating in a globalmarketplace to develop new lines of business whilesafeguarding their core competences. Firms’ ‘tech-nology strategies’, to pick up the term as used in theclassic studies by Adler (1989) and Burgelman andRosenbloom (1989), refer to firms’ plans for technol-ogy in the strategic sense. Businesses should invest informs of technology that meet their business-driven

goals and also aid their decision making throughleveraging the firm’s existing technologicalcapabilities.

Given the pace of technological change, it islikely that companies lacking an effective strategyfor managing their technology will struggle tosecure and maintain a competitive advantage overtheir competitors. According to Petrick and Echols(2004) and Groenveld (2007), firms widely use tech-nology roadmaps (TRMs) to manage their researchand development (R&D) of technologies and prod-ucts and in the broadest sense seek to sustain a busi-ness advantage.

R&D Management 41, 5, 2011. © 2011 The Authors. R&D Management © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd,9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St, Malden, MA, 02148, USA.

485

A study of UK manufacturing firms in 2001 indi-cated that at that time, 10% of medium-to-large com-panies had implemented TRM. Eighty percent ofthose companies had used the approach more thanonce or indeed ran it continuously (Phaal et al.,2003). This study’s survey revealed that the mostsignificant challenge facing companies was develop-ing an ongoing sustainable TRM process.

Researchers have variously studied the concept,adoption, and effects of the TRMs adopted by a rangeof businesses (Bray and Garcia, 1997; Garcia andBray, 1997; Kostoff and Schaller, 2001; Phaal et al.,2004, 2005; Walsh, 2004). However, there has been alack of empirical research into TRM use, more spe-cifically into those factors that increase their use, andinto the benefits (or costs) for firms of developing thisform of monitoring and communication. Based on asurvey of companies that have implemented TRM,this study sets out empirically to determine anteced-ent factors that increase the use of TRM and to assessthe effects of using TRMs on R&D performance.This work highlights the importance of TRM as away for firms to improve their strategic planning inthe technology domain and hence their R&D per-formance. On this basis, the paper also offers sugges-tions for how firms can increase TRM usage.

This paper is organized as follows. The nextsection introduces the concept of TRM through aliterature review, which develops a theoretical foun-dation for the factors that will be used to evaluateTRM use. In addition, this literature review specifiesan appropriate theoretical basis for evaluating R&Dperformance using TRMs. Based on this analysis, anumber of research hypotheses are specified in Sec-tions 3 and 4, which describe the current paper’sresearch model and design. In Section 5, the directand indirect associations and correlations betweenmodel variables are analyzed. Finally, the paperpresents its conclusions in Section 6, recommendingareas where further research would be beneficial intothe business conditions in which roadmaps canenhance technology planning.

2. Literature review

2.1. Definition of a TRM

Large companies in technology-intensive industrieswere the first to adopt (or adapt) TRMs to forecastfuture technological trends and to develop R&Dplans in this light (Bray and Garcia, 1997; Probertand Shehabuddeen, 1999; Kostoff and Schaller,2001; Farrukh et al., 2003; Petrick and Echols, 2004;Walsh, 2004; Phaal et al., 2005; Groenveld, 2007;

Daim and Oliver, 2008). Although the origins ofroadmapping are not clear, with the earliest knownexample dating from 1945 (Beeton, 2007), Motorolais generally attributed with the development of tech-nology roadmapping approaches in the late 1970s(Willyard and McClees, 1987). The InternationalTRM for Semiconductors initiative has now beenrunning for more than 20 years, involving organiza-tions from across the global semiconductor industry(Walsh, 2004).

There are several definitions of the term ‘TRM’.Kostoff and Schaller (2001) and Petrick and Echols(2004) define roadmapping as a method for planningtechnologies capable of exploring future technologi-cal directions and for allowing firms to weigh upalternatives for meeting highly uncertain futuredemand. An important role of TRM is to developmid- to long-term technological strategies that cansecure future technological alternatives for creatingnew technological innovations. Roadmaps do this byexamining both the speed of current technologicaldevelopments and the limitations of existingtechnologies.

Roadmapping has been used largely in the privatesector as a way to develop promising technologiesand products, in the full knowledge that the futurewill be uncertain (Kappel, 2001). As a representativeexample, the Semiconductor Industry Association inthe USA has continuously developed and releasedTRMs since 1991. These roadmaps serve as a guideto determine future directions for technologicaldevelopments in this and related industries (Walshet al., 2005).

Further, Willyard and McClees (1987) character-ize TRMs through an analysis of the companies usingthem, generating a definition of roadmaps as anessential administrative tool connecting a company’stechnological resources to the opportunities offeredby the market. Typically, TRMs present high-levelstrategies for developing long-term technologies overa 5- to 10-year time frame. More detailed plans maythen be elaborated using the conventional method ofproject action planning. Managers use roadmaps toidentify target product categories, to analyze featuresthat could potentially respond to future market needsand to predict the level of core technologies (includ-ing any advances) required to meet these needs.Roadmaps will typically evaluate existing technolo-gies and core capabilities, projecting these into thefuture, and cost and risk-evaluate proposed develop-ment strategies. They also facilitate the sharing ofstrategic messages within organizations by updatinglinked core technologies that target product perform-ance, e.g. industry standards. With this in mind,McMillan (2003) refers to roadmapping as a useful

Jung Hoon Lee, Robert Phaal and Chihoon Lee

486 R&D Management 41, 5, 2011 © 2011 The AuthorsR&D Management © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

tool for knowledge management and communica-tions. TRMs are related to many different concepts inknowledge-based management: for instance, theycan work as a synergistic tool for members of anorganization to pool information and to identify acommon goal. The industrial TRM, in particular, asdeveloped by governments, trade associations andother networks, contributes to strategic policymaking by identifying industries’ common needs andpathways to cooperation. In short, the TRM is arational methodology for seeking agreement onselecting technologies that will help achieve anorganization’s goals. It also serves as a frameworkused for adjusting technology developmentschedules.

Kostoff and Schaller (2001) describe the TRM asfollows. The usual execution diagram for a TRMdepicts the structural and temporal relationshipsbetween technological elements insofar as they applyto products. Like an ordinary highway route map, aTRM comprised nodes and links, either theoreticallyor physically. The nodes and links on a map mayhave both quantitative and qualitative attributes. Forexample, highway maps display the direction, length,and sometimes width of roads, that is, their quantita-tive attributes. At the same time, maps can sometimesdesignate beauty spots, highlighting a qualitativeproperty. Likewise, a terminal point on a TRM candisplay qualitative attributes like the potential impactof a certain technology program, alongside quantita-tive attributes such as the estimated time for turninga scientific program into a technological project. Thetraditional highway map normally expresses nodes

and links on a flat two-dimensional surface. It speci-fies magnitudes and directions in order that thesenodes and linkages may be plotted on a vector map.As shown in Figure 1, the usual TRM is expressed inspatial and temporal terms. The spatial dimensionreflects the relationship between the science and thetechnological areas/programs/projects at a giventime, while the temporal dimension explains thedevelopments of a certain scientific technique ortechnology. Like a highway map, a TRM needs mag-nitudes and directions to express its nodes and linkson a vector space. Because the development of tech-nologies is normally nonlinear and uncertain, andbecause a roadmap may be used for both retrospec-tive and prospective research, the linkage vectors canread both backwards and forwards directions in time.Therefore, constructing a roadmap requires a defini-tion of nodes, specifying the attributes of each node,linking the nodes, and specifying each link.

A number of researchers have classified TRMsinto taxonomic schemes. One early attempt to clas-sify roadmaps was the schema developed by the USOffice of Naval Research, which sorted applicationsby objective (Beeton, 2007). TRMs have been devel-oped in pure and applied science, in specific indus-tries, with respect to particular companies andproducts and to manage product portfolios. Kappel(2001) extends the US office taxonomy to proposefour different dimensions of roadmapping, with thesevarying by emphasis (being concerned with trends orpositioning) and purpose (that is, either specific orindustry-wide). In these terms, roadmaps can beemerging, disruptive, exploratory, or issue oriented.

Figure 1. Nodes and links on a typical science/technology roadmap (Groenveld, 2007).

Determinants of technology roadmap utilization

© 2011 The AuthorsR&D Management © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

R&D Management 41, 5, 2011 487

Phaal et al. (2005) have also characterized roadmapsbased on their purpose and format, breaking downroadmaps into eight different types, specifying plan-ning as production planning, capability planning, andso on, with each of the eight formats being charac-terized in terms of multiple layers, bars, tables,graphs, and so on. Walsh (2004) classifies roadmapsfrom the perspective of the innovations they intro-duce, which may be sustained or disruptive, whileBeeton et al.’s (2008) taxonomy distinguishesbetween types of TRM in terms of knowledge man-agement: according to two dimensions: goal oriented(exploiting core competences) vs exploratory (broad-ening a knowledge base); supra-organizational(accessing an external source of knowledge) vs intra-organizational (developing an internal source ofknowledge).

2.2. Benefits of using TRMs

A number of researchers have sought to specify thebenefits of using TRMs. Garcia and Bray (1997),Kostoff and Schaller (2001), Phaal et al. (2004),Lopez-Ortega et al. (2006), and Groenveld (2007)claim that a roadmap can contribute to the develop-ment of a consensus among decision makers on theneed for new technologies. It may also provide adecision mechanism for acting on intended innova-tions in target areas. Mapping reduces the complex-ity of (the administrative processes underlying)decision-making and its speed of implementation. Inthis way, it can rationally direct investment in newand existing systems. In addition, TRMs offer aframework that can support the planning and coordi-nation of technology developments in any sector,within a company or for an entire field or industry, oreven between countries or at an international level.The systematic way in which roadmapping structuresinformation and knowledge (Phaal and Muller, 2009)provides a common (visual) language that helps tomanage the complexity of technological programs,enabling synergies and strategic gaps to be identified.

Another benefit of TRMs lies in their information-based decision support for investment in new tech-nologies (Bray and Garcia, 1997; Kostoff andSchaller, 2001; Bruce and Fine, 2004). Kappel(1998) states that the process of roadmappinggrounds individual decisions in company informa-tion and improves cooperation in an organization’sdecision making. As an example of additional ben-efits, Lucent Technologies found a general technol-ogy during cross-roadmap review (Berman et al.,1996). In the course of their highest level review ofTRMs for wireless communication products, theydiscovered that every roadmap showed the need to

adopt battery and antenna technologies. With thisinformation, the company’s planning team couldpropose the distribution and integration of R&D, thesupply chain, and other general resources. Phaalet al. (2003) suggest that roadmapping is thus instru-mental in improving the cohesiveness of firm-widedecision making. TRMs promote a holistic consid-eration of technological choices, on which basisfirms may then formulate strategy and plan morerationally. Daim and Oliver (2008) also describe howTRM can link product plans to technology plans byfocusing on longer term planning and priority setting.

Probert and Shehabuddeen (1999) describe TRMsas a tool for evaluating future technology develop-ments in ever-changing technology environments.They stress that maps’ main benefit lies in their offer-ing a system-based view of prospective technologicalchange – something that they can do on the strengthof their multidisciplinary, cross-functional nature,which can provide guidance for the whole firm ororganization.

Lastly, Radnor and Probert (2004) suggest that anorganization must be committed long term to TRMutilization for roadmaps to point the way to any valu-able learning process, let alone to restructure itsproduct and technology strategies. Companiesshould devote more time and money to roadmaps –their ‘buy-in’ should be bigger and more serious. It islikely that the costs of initial investment in maps willbe high, as training, for example, is implementedacross a firm. Cost–benefits, though, improve withlater implementations of the process. Roadmapswithin a company should also evolve to incorporatenew dimensions (Radnor and Probert, 2004).

2.3. Factors influencing utilizationof TRMs

Only a handful of previous works have set out todescribe the determinant factors in TRM utilization.

Gerdsri et al. (2009) approach this issue from theviewpoint of human resources, observing how therole of key players is different at different TRMimplementation stages. It is important, they suggest,to align people, processes, and data in setting up aTRM. In their paper, a so-called champion teamdrives forward the TRM initiative and is critical to itsimplementation success. Lopez-Ortega et al. (2006)put forward a similar view as regards the alignmentof technology and business. They suggest that it isimportant that a firm’s organizational structure sup-ports the value delivery of a roadmap. The ownershipof TRM must be clear in terms of the identity of itsexecutive sponsor and change management agencies.



In addition, it is critical to measure the progress, aswell as the implementation, of a TRM if it is tosucceed.

Wells et al. (2004) also underscore the importanceof the quality of knowledge captured during a road-mapping process. This means that it is critical toselect the right people to be involved in implement-ing and championing the map during a workshopphase. It is also important to focus on a clear objec-tive prior to developing a roadmap. Bray and Garcia(1997) advise that sufficient time and effort be givento roadmapping, with leadership and sponsorshiproles clearly specified. However, Groenveld (2007)suggests that it may not be easy to get a commitmentfrom senior management to a roadmap. However,when roadmapping processes are initiated from thebottom-up, it will be necessary for those proposingthe roadmap to demonstrate its benefits.

Farrukh et al. (2003) and Phaal et al. (2004) alsoemphasize software-based TRM tools, which have animportant role to play in supporting the application ofroadmapping within any enterprise. A software toolcan incorporate a larger database on different tech-nologies, automate electronic surveys, and providegraphical tools to present TRM templates. The toolmay thus be utilized by project management softwarein the context of R&D programs (Phaal et al., 2004).TRMs may also be used for the continuous updatingand maintenance of roadmaps. This will empower asystematic approach strengthening R&D effective-ness and efficiency by developing and linking mul-tiple roadmaps (Bruce and Fine, 2004). Severalorganizations have understood the benefits of asoftware tool of this kind and are developingor running some form of software for technologyroadmapping, including Motorola (Richey, 2001),the Center for Technology Roadmapping, PurdueUniversity (Phaal et al., 2004), and Honeywell(Petrick and Echols, 2004). Since TRM implementa-tion requires common standards, such a software-based TRM tool can be useful if roadmappingprocesses and TRM participants are familiar withformats and taxonomies (i.e. roadmap architecture).The implication is that the social aspects of roadmap-ping must be incorporated with the software toolto develop, store, disseminate, and maintain theroadmap on a constant basis.

3. Research hypothesis development

Again, only a limited number of previous works haveanalyzed the factors that influence the use of TRM.The question can thus be asked: what are the deter-minant antecedent factors of TRM utilization? Based

on the current literatures, we have developed anumber of research hypotheses to construct an appro-priate research model for answering our researchquestions.

McKeen and Smith (2006) found that TRMstended to take root in companies only when systemshad been set up to develop, manage, and supportthem. The existence of a technology roadmappingplan is thus critical to a TRM’s implementationsuccess. A number of scholars made securing seniormanagement commitment their highest successfactor in relation to the development of a workingTRM (Bray and Garcia, 1997; EIRMA, 1997;Kostoff and Schaller, 2001; McMillan, 2003; Phaalet al., 2005; McKeen and Smith, 2006; Gerdsri et al.,2010). The roadmapping process is a collective stra-tegic activity. It depends on social and interactiveaspects, which are facilitated with senior manage-ment support and enthusiasm for developing andrunning a TRM (McKeen and Smith, 2006). Thiscommitment ensures the availability of resources,such as time, budgeted money, and facilitation, andcan also schedule workshops involving appropriatepersonnel (Phaal et al., 2004). A migration strategyfor setting up a roadmap requires an executivesponsor, with ownership and accountability under-stood across relevant sectors of an organization.Leaders need to be paid, recognized, and incentivizedto get the roadmap working properly (Bray andGarcia, 1997; McKeen and Smith, 2006).

Roadmap managers must be empowered to run theentire process, setting standards for roadmap devel-opment and bringing necessary experts into theroadmap development team (Kostoff and Schaller,2001; McMillan, 2003; Gerdsri et al., 2009). Thesemanagers provide transformational leadership,taking responsibility for their staff and working toovercome any managerial constraints standing in theway of roadmap development (Kostoff and Schaller,2001). The roadmap manager should also be able tolimit the scope of the roadmap by applying definedcriteria. Questions of a map’s scope should be deter-mined by a working group supported by senior man-agement, which should select the final inputs for theroadmap from numerous suggestions (Kostoff andSchaller, 2001).

It is also important that the development expertsinvolved in setting up a roadmap are capable andobjective. Wells et al. (2004) suggest that the qualityof knowledge captured during a roadmappingprocess depends on the involvement of the right per-sonnel. This means that it is crucial during the work-shop to state a clear objective for TRM. The expertsconsulted during the workshop phase should havetechnical expertise in their field, meaning that a




roadmap development team should be capable ofhandling specialized tasks or product lines closelyconnected to emerging scientific and technologicalfields (Kostoff and Schaller, 2001).

To achieve this objective, an organization needs tounderstand the importance of setting the right gov-ernance structure and organizational support tofacilitate the execution of a high-quality roadmap.Furthermore, these attributes should be created bythe group responsible for the actual execution ofroadmapping or the creation of value from it. A clearrole and responsibility for each stakeholder shouldbe defined. Where a multifunctional team will beformed to implement a roadmapping process, it willbe necessary for a team of players to be continuouslyinvolved in development, implementation, and main-tenance over time (Farrukh et al., 2003; Zweck andHoltmannspotter, 2009). In this way, TRM executionbecomes a long term, strategic activity process,rather than a matter of single-shot execution.

The implication of this for business-level TRM isthat an internal group within the organization shouldparticipate in the roadmapping process and use theroadmap to make decisions concerning resource allo-cation. These findings lead to the following hypoth-esis about the utilization of TRM.

Hypothesis 1: Effective organizational support posi-tively affects the utilization of TRMs.

Another important factor in roadmaps used for com-paring and evaluating scientific or technologicaltrends or in the contexts of R&D projects is theirstandardization of a range of planning/forecastingprocesses. The specification of these standards bringstogether different development teams. These teamswill feature a wide range of participants includingstaff from marketing, R&D, and operations (Kostoffand Schaller, 2001). The roadmapping process istherefore itself an iterative process. Within thebroader scope of its planning, the roadmappingprocess touches on both a corporate and technologycontext (Bray and Garcia, 1997).

Phaal et al. (2006) describe how the real benefitsof roadmapping often derive from the process itselfrather than taking the form of the final roadmapoutputs. Further, the author addresses the process ofintegrating a TRM with an organization’s currentsystems, claiming that this almost always representsa significant process of change. Based on a surveyconducted by the Institute of Manufacturing, Univer-sity of Cambridge, in 2000, they point to three chal-lenges that must be met to keep a TRM roadmappingprocess alive and robust (Phaal et al., 2003). First,TRM processes must be maintained continuously.Second, a TRM must be integrated with standard

business and technology planning activities within anorganization (Daim and Oliver, 2008). Third, tech-nology roadmapping processes must overcome anyobstacles they face in terms of management or cor-porate inertia (Bruce and Fine, 2004).

Roadmapping is also a process-oriented approachthat requires cross-functional participation through-out the process of TRM utilization (Cosner et al.,2007). Gerdsri describes how the application ofTRM should be planned very specifically (Gerdsriand Assakul, 2007; Gerdsri et al., 2009). His researchindicates the importance of engaging the right peopleand resources at each stage of the process. Thismeans that TRM rests on collaborative social proc-esses, even though roadmapping processes andoutputs vary in different organizations (Bruce andFine, 2004). For instance, Phaal et al. (2004) proposea workshop-based roadmapping process for identify-ing and exploring strategic and innovation opportu-nities. A workshop of this kind will bring keystakeholders and experts together to explore howroadmapping may be applied in their specific con-texts. Consequently, TRM participants will arrive at ahigher level of consensus concerning the value of theroadmapping process as a communication tool. Theroadmap will thus be the object of a dialogue aboutsupporting and implementing an appropriate technol-ogy strategy (Phaal et al., 2004). The question of howpeople may be incorporated within the standardizedroadmapping process thus becomes important.

Although roadmapping processes can vary acrossdifferent organizations, the process itself can be bothstandardized and customized, given the particularsituation and contexts. Phaal et al. (2004) propose astandard process-oriented approach for supportingproduct planning comprising four facilitated work-shops (for marketing, products, technology, androadmapping). This process can then be customizedto suit particular applications, making changes insuch parameters as the level of resource availability,available information, and variations in other relevantprocesses and management methods. Lee and Park(2005) also propose a customized roadmappingprocess in three phases: classification (stating road-mapping’s purpose and the roadmap type), standardi-zation (for product and technology sections), andmodularization (for planning, forecasting, andadministration). This enables mass customization tofit specific needs. In their research, standardizedformats of roadmap are designed as components.They see the purpose of roadmapping as offering abasis for customization, as roadmap formats areusually determined by managerial needs. It is impor-tant for the authors that roadmapping processes notonly evolve in the direction of generating standard-



ized TRM templates but also that they can supportcustomized processes through clearly stated roadmapcriteria and documentation that helps with roadmapcomponent selection. Based on literature findings,then, following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 2: An effective TRM process positivelyaffects the utilization of TRMs.

One of the benefits of roadmaps is that they oftenencourage systematic thinking, linking technologies,products, and markets. Roadmaps may allowroadmap participants to identify organizationalrequirements once they have decided on the impor-tant factors that need to be roadmapped (Garcia andBray, 1997). However, roadmapping processes areoften executed manually, that is, through workshopor survey methods. This means that it can be difficultto update roadmaps on a timely or continuous basisin a large organization (Phaal et al., 2004; Lee andPark, 2005). In other words, difficulties maintainingroadmaps can become a major obstacle to their effec-tive use. If roadmapping techniques need to be usedon an ongoing basis in various fields, firms shouldconsider developing software for supporting theinception, storage, and upkeep of the roadmap (Bruceand Fine, 2004). At the start of roadmapping, wordprocessor or graphic software may be sufficient, butadvanced software is likely to be more effective inmaintaining a well-developed or complex roadmap-ping process (Petrick and Echols, 2004). Forinstance, software-based roadmapping efforts areused in Honeywell technology, developing, storing,disseminating, and managing roadmap processes in acommon format. The TRM then uploads to a data-base. These standardized roadmaps can be docu-mented and accessed by different participants, whothen coordinate the process and use the map in plan-ning (Phaal et al., 2004).

A recent survey study found that 65% of respond-ents thought that software-based roadmapping couldhelp overcome problems caused by the lack of road-mapping tools, techniques, and methods (Lupini,2002). In this context, Cho et al. (2009) have devel-oped integrated service-device TRMs for ICT-basedurban city planning and development [e.g. ubiquitouscity (u-City) or smart city development]. Variousindividual u-City service roadmaps have been gener-ated; however, the project still faces the problem ofneeding system designers to develop a flexible andcomprehensive software tool able to update and reuseindividual service roadmaps. In effect, the u-Cityproject proposes a software-based decision supporttool able quickly to reuse roadmaps and capture,maintain, and manage their data. Petrick and Echols(2004) briefly describe how a roadmapping process

guided by a software tool can transform a company’sR&D investment and new product development plan-ning. The authors point to how Motorola generatesindividual roadmaps for product and R&D projectsthrough extending a collective roadmapping processto its supply chain through adaptations effected by asoftware tool.

In addition, Lee and Park (2005) have set out anaccount of the use of a software tool that aids road-mapping by (1) ensuring the easy creation of maps ina standardized format. The content of these maps arebased on roadmapping objectives; (2) disseminatingroadmaps through sharing information at a systemiclevel throughout the corporation and with its supplychain partners during technological and productplanning; and (3) keeping roadmaps current to mini-mize the overhead costs of major software updatesand transitions.

Phaal et al. (2004) have considered some of theattributes that roadmapping software should includeto enable the management of data associated with theroadmap. Roadmaps should be capable of locatingand analyzing data, and of managing data complexity(for example, from multiple perspectives or throughforms of cross-referencing data such as critical path-ways). In short, the benefit of such developedsystems can contribute to automated and customizedroadmapping processes to generate and utilizeTRMs, although having such a software tool may notbe mandatory for improving roadmap utilization. Theresearch literature thus suggests an appropriatetool can play an important role in driving TRMutilization.

Hypothesis 3: A software tool for managing TRMpositively affects the utilization of TRMs.

A number of works in the literature imply that onevalue of TRMs lies in their connection corporatevisions or strategy to product plans through formu-lating appropriate technology plans (Daim andOliver, 2008). Business strategies entail the coordi-nation of a business’s activities to gain a competitiveadvantage within its market (Porter, 1980). Integrat-ing technological considerations into business strat-egy thus represents an important part of businessplanning. The major premise here is that a firm’stechnology strategy should be developed not sepa-rately from the business strategy but as an importantpart of it (Bitondo and Frohman, 1981; Probert andShehabuddeen, 1999).

It is therefore critical to establish an alignmentbetween the company’s objectives and technologicalresources. This balancing act is challenging for manyfirms (Radnor and Peterson, 1999; Lopez-Ortegaet al., 2006; Cosner et al., 2007; Daim and Oliver,




2008). Lopez-Ortega et al. (2006) make the point thatorganizations need to determine the role that technol-ogy will play in fulfilling their business vision andshould resolve business problems to allow technol-ogy to deliver the right value for them. Roadmappingprocesses need to be continuously integrated intoongoing processes and technology planning withinan organization (Gerdsri et al., 2009, 2010). Thisrequires the effective support of TRM development(‘alignment capability’) through an appropriatemethod (Bray and Garcia, 1997; Wells et al., 2004).Particular importance can be laid on the dialog andunderstanding between a company’s business and thetechnical functions (Whalen, 2007). There are anumber of proposed tools and techniques embeddedwithin the planning stage of TRM development proc-esses that clearly articulate both business and processobjectives (Cosner et al., 2007; Lee et al., 2007;Daim and Oliver, 2008; Cho et al., 2009; Gerdsriet al., 2010) In addition, an organization’s ability toframe alignments between TRMs and a corporatestrategic plan can be measured by how these effortsare incorporated within the development processfor roadmaps (Gerdsri et al., 2010). TRMs can alsoprovide support addressing the specific needs of abusiness helping it to meet its firm objectives(Radnor and Peterson, 1999).

Tailoring the scope and boundaries of a TRM canensure that a firm’s strategic plan (as inherited from acorporate vision) supports the specific technologicalprocesses it develops to serve its goals (Bray andGarcia, 1997; Groenveld, 2007). This tailoringprocess is often determined by a specific firm’s needsand business contexts (Zweck and Holtmannspotter,2009; Gerdsri et al., 2010). Roadmap scope is alsoinfluenced by how linkages between a firm’s busi-ness and R&D strategy are established in the contextof its organization, as TRMs provide a frameworklinking business and product plans and facilitatingclose cooperation between marketing, product devel-opment, and R&D teams (Bray and Garcia, 1997;Gerdsri et al., 2009; Phaal and Muller, 2009). There-fore, the process of roadmapping is made simpler byaligning the company’s business and technologicalstrategies. Hence, the following hypothesis can bedeveloped:

Hypothesis 4: TRM that is aligned with the compa-ny’s strategies positively affects TRM utilization.

The above research hypotheses were proposed toexamine the correlation between the utilization ofTRM and R&D performance. Roadmaps and theprocess of roadmapping provide tools to ‘sensitize anorganization’s radar’, helping it to identify and evalu-ate possible threats and opportunities and widening

its planning horizon. For example, a roadmap can beused to evaluate the influence of potentially innova-tive technologies and to anticipate market changesarising from the introduction of business plans andsystems (Whalen, 2007). TRM is, for instance, auseful technology-planning tool in the competitiveenvironment faced by US Sandia National Laborato-ries. In other national research institutes, TRM isespecially useful in coordinating developments ofmultiple technologies in multiple projects. Suchcoordination can be very important in managingtechnologies related to a company’s core compe-tences (Garcia and Bray, 1997).

A key benefit of a TRM is that it provides infor-mation that can enable better technology investments(Bray and Garcia, 1997), used in conjunction withother methods. First, the TRM provides informationabout the core technologies needed for the imple-mentation of a targeted product feature and the limi-tations of current technology. Second, the TRMprovides information on ways to reinforce R&Dinvestment while coordinating R&D activities withina company or between allied organizations (Garciaand Bray, 1997). A company’s vision expresses itselfin strategic planning efforts, which frame high-levelobjectives and directions for the firm. In accordancewith strategic objectives, technology plans includeidentifying, selecting, and investing in the technolo-gies needed to provide company products and serv-ices (Probert and Shehabuddeen, 1999). Bray andGarcia (1997) explain the importance of TRM whentechnology investment decisions risk being distorted.Such distortion can occur when there is no clearinformation about which of many alternatives mightbe preferable, how soon the technology is needed,and how to coordinate multiple technologies. TRMshelp plan and coordinate technology developmentsand provide information for better technology invest-ments, suggesting the next hypothesis. A smallnumber of research projects have used case studies todemonstrate how TRM contributes to R&D perform-ance (Kim, 2006; Saritas and Aylen, 2010).

Although the correlation between TRM usage andthe performance of R&D is significant, this study hasnot explored the time period it takes for roadmappingto affect R&D performance. It typically takes a longtime for TRMs to demonstrate useful results, afinding that may be due to a range of contingentfactors. However, Cooper and Edgett (2009) found astrong degree of correlation between product levelroadmapping and company success in innovating. Intheir study, 38% of the best performing companieshad put in place a strategic product roadmap in stra-tegic arenas (69%) and had set objectives for productinnovation (51.7%). These positive outcomes suggest



that R&D performance in general may be positivelyaffected by roadmap utilization. It is plausible, then,to suppose that a TRM plays a mediating role inimproving R&D performance, leading to the formu-lation of the following research hypothesis:

Hypothesis 5: High utilization of a TRM positivelyaffects R&D performance.

4. Research design

4.1. Research model

Based on the research hypotheses, this researchdefined a study model relating the four factors takento influence TRM utilization and their impacts onR&D performance, as shown in Figure 2. Thesefactors consist of organizational support, an effectiveroadmap process, appropriate software, and the road-map’s alignment with company objectives. As a wayto evaluate the degree of TRM utilization, the effectsof TRM usage were examined and taken into consid-eration for a sample of respondents contacted by thisstudy.

Based on the proposed research model, this studyaimed to determine which factors influence the utili-zation of TRM, as well as to determine how practicaluse of TRMs affects R&D performance. This studyalso aimed to verify the mediating role of TRM indirectly or indirectly affecting the R&D performance(i.e. it sought to confirm the mediating effect of TRMutilization).

4.2. Constructs and measures

The theoretical definitions, measures, and relatedstudies of the six research variables used in this studyare summarized in Table 1. Because this is the firstempirical study to examine TRM utilization at thefirm level, validated measurement items did not exist

within most of our parameters. Therefore, new itemswere selected and modified from relevant studies.

In constructing independent variables for thefactors that influence TRM utilization based on theresearch hypotheses set out in Table 1, the study con-structed ‘organizational support’ through four meas-urable items: (1) a measure of senior managementcommitment/support, (2) a measure capturing therole of the roadmap manager, (3) a measure for thecompetence of the roadmap participants or team, and(4) a measure for the role and responsibility ofroadmap participants. Three measurable items wereselected on the basis on the current literature tomeasure the ‘effectiveness of the roadmap’: (1) itsdegree of normalization and standardization, (2) itsintegration with the human aspects of roadmapping,and (3) the adequacy of the criteria and documenta-tion supporting roadmap component selection. For an‘appropriate software tool’, four measurable itemsare defined as (1) availability, (2) the availability ofrequisite information or data, (3) facility, and (4)integrity. For ‘alignment with company objectives’,three measurement items are measured: (1) alignmentcapability, (2) the existence of tailored processes spe-cific to firm needs and business contexts, and (3)linkages between business and R&D strategy. Table 1shows the operational definitions and measures ofthese factors taken to affect the utilization of TRM.

4.2.1 TRM utilizationKostoff et al. (2004) argue that the most importantTRM component has to do with execution. For anadvanced roadmap, it is essential to develop a high-level system of administrative organization empow-ered to take decisions. This organization will overseethe execution of a long-term strategic roadmappingprocess. Next in importance for Kostoff is theroadmap developer’s success in designing a visuallyeffective and technologically reliable roadmap. The

Figure 2. Research model.




roadmap manager should be able to limit the scope ofthe roadmap through limitation criteria, organize aworking group, and select the final inputs for theroadmap from numerous inputs. The capability andobjectivity of the development experts is extremelyimportant in these regards. Experts should have tech-nical expertise in their fields. Further, the roadmapdevelopment team should be capable of handling spe-cialized tasks or product lines closely connected to theemergence of new scientific and technological fields.

In conceiving a roadmap, it is important to definethe critical technologies needed to achieve targetedproduct performance and thus to strengthen R&Dinvestment by coordinating these activities across anorganization or alliance (Garcia and Bray, 1997).These definitions will also have to take into accountthe limitations (of horizon and capability) that TRMsare designed to overcome. A company’s vision gen-erates strategic planning efforts in establishing high-level objectives and directions. In the context of a

Table 1. Operational definitions and measures of factors affecting the utilization of technology roadmapping

Variable Operational definition Measures Sources

Organizationalsupport

Support from theorganization inintroducing and usingthe technologyroadmap

Senior managementcommitment/support

Bray and Garcia (1997); EIRMA (1997);Kostoff and Schaller (2001); Phaal et al.(2006); McMillan (2003); Lopez-Ortegaet al. (2006); and Gerdsri et al. (2010)

Role of roadmap manager Kostoff and Schaller (2001); Gerdsri et al.(2009); and Gerdsri et al. (2010)

Competence of roadmapparticipants/team

EIRMA (1997); Probert and Shehabuddeen(1999); Wells et al. (2004); and Gerdsriet al. (2009);

Responsibility ofroadmapparticipants/team

Bray and Garcia (1997); Phaal et al. (2006);Gerdsri et al. (2009); Zweck andHoltmannspotter (2009); and Gerdsri et al.(2010)

Effectiveroadmapprocess

Effective technologyroadmap process forusing and operatingtechnology roadmap

Normalization andstandardization

Phaal et al. (2004); and Kostoff and Schaller(2001)

Degree of integrationwith human aspects ofroadmapping

Bray and Garcia (1997); EIRMA (1997);Phaal et al. (2005); Kostoff and Schaller(2001); McMillan (2003); Gindy et al.(2006); Gerdsri et al. (2009); and Zweckand Holtmannspotter (2009)

Criteria and appropriatedocumentation forroadmap componentselection

Bray and Garcia (1997); Farrukh et al.(2003); and Kostoff and Schaller (2001);

Appropriatesoftware

Software fordevelopment, storage,dissemination, andupkeep of technologyroadmap

Availability Grinnell et al. (2002); Bruce and Fine (2004);and Petrick and Echols (2004);

Required data/information/knowledgeavailable

Phaal et al. (2003); and Lee et al. (2008)

Facility (software shouldcater for both ‘novice’and advanced users)

Phaal et al. (2005); Petrick and Echols(2004); and Lee and Park (2005)

Integrity Phaal et al. (2005)

Alignment withcompanyobjective

Support for businessobjectives, e.g.technology strategy forbusiness activities andtechnologymanagement andplanning

Alignment capabilities ofthe roadmappingmethod with businessgoals and context

Radnor and Peterson (1999); Lopez-Ortegaet al. (2006); and Cosner et al. (2007)

Tailoring of process tospecific firm needs andbusiness context

EIRMA (1997); Bray and Garcia (1997);Phaal et al. (2004); Wells et al. (2004);Gerdsri et al. (2010); and Zweck andHoltmannspotter (2009)

Linkages betweenbusiness and R&Dstrategy

Bray and Garcia (1997); and Gerdsri et al.(2009);



company’s vision, strategic planning processes mustresult in decisions defining and linking the needs(demand/requirements) of the target market and ofcustomers with the products or services the companyintends to offer them. The main benefit of TRM isthat it improves firms’ investment decisions in tech-nology by providing information on the backgroundof R&D investment through taking note of the firm’scritical technologies and current technological limi-tations (EIRMA, 1997). Table 2 shows the opera-tional definitions and measures for the factorsinvolved in the utilization of TRM.

In this paper, constructs and measures for TRMutilization can be defined in terms of the key benefitsof TRM usage. This assumption finds confirmation inthe literature. A TRM utilization construct was meas-ured with new items developed out of suggestions inthe literature as shown in Table 2. Roadmappingusage may be understood in terms of the differentbenefits it offers investment decisions, for instance,(1) in science and technology investment decisionmaking, in allowing participants to reach consensusover a set of needs and technologies; (2) in allowingparticipants to reach consensus on the technologiesrequired to satisfy agreed needs and lending itselfto use as a common framework to help experts; (3)in facilitating agreeing over a common framework toforecast and coordinate technology development,especially by improving organizational communica-

tion associated with business processes; (4) in sup-porting the company’s business strategies; (5) indriving the strategic planning process; and (6) inframing the business’s strategic planning.

4.2.2 R&D performanceTo measure the R&D performance resulting fromTRM utilization, Kaplan and Norton’s (1996) bal-anced scorecard (BSC)-based R&D performanceindicators were adopted, as modified followingwork by Kerssens-van Drongelen and Cooke (1997),which provides a comprehensive review on the meas-urement as shown in Table 3. One notable feature ofthe results was that the financial perspective and cus-tomer perspective, two of the four perspectives forR&D performance typically applied using a BSCapproach, were not used as forms of measurement.The justification for these choices is that one of theresearch objectives was to reflect the experience ofproject managers and members in focusing on road-maps from the internal R&D perspective. To evaluatethe external performance of R&D, the measurementfor the dependent variable would have to be assessedusing objective financial data and by gauging thesatisfaction of both internal customers involved in theR&D project and external customers. R&D perform-ance measurement from the financial perspective canbe carried out by analyzing objective data such as

Table 2. Operational definitions and measures for factors for utilization of technology roadmapping (TRM) (practicaluse of TRM)

Operational definition Measures Sources

Making investmentdecisions ontechnology strategies

Science and technology investmentdecision-making usage

Garcia and Bray (1997); EIRMA (1997); Allan et al.(2001); Bruce and Fine (2004); Beeton et al. (2008);Kajikawa et al. (2008); and Kostoff et al. (2004)

Consensus about a set ofneeds and technologies

Development of a consensus on thetechnologies required to satisfyagreed needs

Garcia and Bray (1997); Kostoff and Schaller (2001);Wells et al. (2004); Kostoff et al. (2004); Petrick andEchols (2004); Kim (2006); Kanama et al. (2008);Beeton et al. (2008); and Fujii and Ikawa (2008)

Common framework forthe technologyroadmap process

Mechanism to help experts forecasttechnology developments andplan/coordinate technology

Garcia and Bray (1997); Albright and Kappel (2003);Probert and Radnor (2003); Kostoff et al. (2004);Bruce and Fine (2004); Rinne (2004); Lee and Park(2005); Lee et al. (2007); and Cho et al. (2009);

Smooth organizationalcommunicationbetween constituents ofthe business process

Communication re processes (e.g.outsourcing)

Phaal et al. (2004, 2005, 2006); Farrukh et al. (2003);Kappel (2001); Albright and Kappel (2003); Probertand Radnor (2003); Wells et al. (2004); Bruce andFine (2004); Rinne (2004); Groenveld (2007);Kanama et al. (2008); Fukuda et al. (2008); Fujii andIkawa (2008); Phaal and Muller (2009); and Choet al. (2009)

Support for thecompany’s businessstrategies

Driving the strategic planningprocess

Allan et al. (2001); Albright and Kappel (2003); Wellset al. (2004); Groenveld (2007); Lee et al. (2007);Daim and Oliver (2008); Phaal and Muller (2009);and Cho et al. (2009);

Framework for thinking aboutstrategic planning in the business




return on investment reports or financial statements,while customers connected to the R&D department,either internal or external, can provide information fora R&D performance measurement from the customerperspective. Therefore, this study measured R&Dperformance from the innovation and learning per-spective and the internal business perspective, theBSC measurement perspectives taken as mostlikely to identify significant factors affecting TRMutilization. Further, studying TRMs from an internalbusiness perspective focuses evaluation on the man-agement responsibilities of the R&D organization interms of (1) productivity, (2) speed to market technol-ogy, (3) the reliable delivery of outputs, and (4) outputquality. Examining roadmaps from the innovation andlearning perspective focuses attention on the continu-ous creation and expansion of R&D values, which wasmeasured by such items as (1) technology leadership,(2) long-term focus, (3) absorptive capacity, and (4)the organization’s capacity to learn. Table 3 shows theoperational definitions and measures of the factorsinvolved in R&D performance measurement.

5. Empirical study

5.1. Designing an empirical study

Based on the research model and hypotheses pre-sented above, this study put together a questionnaireof 67 survey items as presented in Appendix C. Thesedealt respectively with the determined antecedentfactors of TRM utilization (20), TRM utilization (15),R&D performance (15), and demographic informa-tion including use of TRM within the organization

(17). The demographic information elicited by thesurvey includes respondents’ position in the company,their length of employment, and companies’ assetvalue and R&D expenditure. In addition, the question-naire also sought information on how companies wereusing TRM within the firm and how TRM was devel-oped, i.e. with what sources and to what purpose. Allconstructs were measured using a 7-point Likert-stylescale items ranging from strongly disagree (1) tostrongly agree (7). Detailed explanations of constructsand measure items used are provided below.

5.2. Demographics and descriptivestatistics

The study Korean Composite Stock Price Index(KOSPI) and Korean Securities Automated Quota-tions (KOSDAQ) listed companies that had engagedin technology strategy development. To limit thesample to companies large enough for consideration,KOSDAQ-listed companies whose assets are valuedlower than KRW50 billion were excluded from thestudy, while all companies listed on KOSPI wereconsidered. The survey questionnaire was sent out to253 different R&D units of KOSDAQ-listed compa-nies who could respond both directly online andthrough filling out paper copies between September2008 and January 2009. A sample of 194 responseswas collected at a response rate of 76.7%. With aresponse error of 8, a total of 186 samples wereanalyzed in this study.

The respondents generally work in the R&D unitsof Korean companies that had adopted TRM. Morespecifically, respondents tended to be project manag-ers and project leaders actively involved in R&D

Table 3. Operational definition and measures of factors for research and development (R&D) performance measurement

Variable Operational definition Measures Source

Internal businessperspective

What must we excel at? Productivity: hours spent on projects/total hourR&D

Kerssens-vanDrongelen andCooke (1997)Speed to market technology/design reuse: current

time to market(development time)/reference timeto market (development time)

Reliable delivery of outputs: sum of revised projectdurations/sum of planned durations.

Quality of output: no. of times rework required

Innovation andlearningperspective

Can we continue toimprove and createR&D value?

Technology leadership: no. of patentable discoveriesper $ spent on R&D

Long-term focus: % of budget spent internally andexternally on basic and applied research

High absorptive capacity: percent of project incooperation with third party

Learning organization: percent of project evaluationideas applied in new projects



projects who used TRM. In this regard, differentR&D units may be considered as different businessunits within the same organization, who may utilize adifferent roadmap developed for different productsand services. The companies surveyed were relativelywell distributed across a number of industries, includ-ing electronics (27.3%), heavy industry (20.9%),chemicals (19.4%), communication (11.1%), infor-mation technology (7.1%), and others (13.3%).

The majority of the respondents (90.3%) wereR&D project leaders at assistant manager level orhigher within their company, while most of the com-panies surveyed had a large R&D organization. As forcompanies’ number of employees, those with morethan 1,000 employees accounted for 88.1% of thesample, while 88.8% of the companies had more than100 R&D staff. A total of 92.1% of the companiesearned a total revenue of KRW100 billion or more.More than 67.5% of the surveyed companies haveR&D expenditure between 3% and 10% of totalrevenue. As for the general characteristics of therespondents (project managers/leaders), 90.4% of therespondents were assistant managers or higher withinthe company, and 57.3% had worked for theircompany for over 5 years.

In terms of the range of roadmap characteristics,70% of the respondents (project managers/leaders)stated that their TRM was developed either by inter-nal R&D staff (e.g. a task force team) or a joint forceteam with external consultants. A total of 24.5% hadused Korean Industry Associations references, and36% followed up the work of major consulting firms.The majority of the respondents (97.8%) are cur-rently using TRM and have had some kind of systemin place since 2000. The average TRM usage of thesurveyed companies was 7.7 years with an updatingperiod of 3.6 years, which varied with companies’industrial characteristics. When asked why they hadused TRM, 27.3% responded that it had served as aninput in generating new ideas for new product andservice development; 17.4% responded that thecompany used it in predicting future technologicaltrends and identifying potential technologies, and15.1% and 11.9% responded that it helped developR&D resource allocation plan and formulate R&Dplans and policies, respectively.

5.3. Reliability analysis and validity ofmeasurement instrument

To test the reliability of the instrument, this studyused Cronbach’s alpha (a) to estimate the internalconsistency of the reliability of a measurement scale.There is no absolute standard for reliability evalua-tion, but a value above 0.6 is generally acceptable for

exploratory studies, and an alpha value over 0.7 gen-erally accepted for studies that adopt the same meas-ures as previous research works (Nunnally, 1978).The result of the reliability test for the measurementtool is fully specified in Appendix A. All variablesexhibited high values, with a = 0.836 for organiza-tional support, 0.814 for an effective roadmapprocess, 0.907 for appropriate software, 0.748 foralignment with company objective, 0.899 for utiliza-tion of TRM, and 0.848 for R&D performance.

Various types of validity apply to the correlation ofvariables including content, construct, and criterion-related validity. In the following analysis, constructvalidity, which refers to the degree to which aninstrument measures the theoretical trait it wasdesigned to measure, will be evaluated. Factor analy-sis was used to confirm construct validity using aneigenvalue of 1, where correlations with a factorloading above 0.5 or below -0.5 selected to be ana-lyzed by varimax rotation, which is most useful indealing with orthogonal rotations (Straub, 1989).Factor rotation converged in eight iterations (seeAppendix B). As Comrey (1973) suggests in his con-sideration of the literature, a factor loading is consid-ered to be fair where the value is between 0.45 and0.54, good between 0.55 and 0.62, very goodbetween 0.63 and 0.70, and excellent where the valueis over 0.71. Factors that influence the utilization ofTRM, organizational support, the presence of aneffective roadmap process, appropriate software, andalignment with company objectives were analyzed infactor analysis for validity, yielding four factors. Thefour items included in organizational support wereincorporated into Factor 1, and the three itemsincluded in effective roadmap process incorporatedinto Factor 2. Next, the four items included in themeasure for appropriate software were included inFactor 3, while the three items considered under theheading of alignment with company objectives wereincluded in Factor 4. This result confirms the validityof the factors that affect the utilization of TRM.

Meanwhile, factors investigated as assessing TRMutilization were evaluated using six measurementinstruments, including the existence of a frameworkfor strategic planning, a supporting strategy, a facilityfor investment decision making, consensus about aset of needs and technologies, organizational com-munication, and a common business framework.Combining these six measurements items, the utili-zation of a TRM was identified as a single factor. Inaddition, companies’ R&D performance was evalu-ated using two measurement instruments, from aninnovation and learning perspective and from aninternal business perspective. The combination of thefive measurement items likewise identified R&D per-




formance in terms of a single factor. The suggestedTRM factors explained 81.1% of the total resultsdispersion.

5.4. Research hypothesis testing

To test the hypothesis that factors such as organiza-tional support, alignment with company objectives,an effective roadmapping process and appropriatesoftware, influence the utilization of TRM, multipleregression analysis was conducted as shown inTable 4. The results are summarized below.

Reviewing the results in Table 4, it can be seen thatall hypotheses are statistically significant and may betaken to show an effect on TRM utilization. Regres-sion analysis for hypothesis 1 showed statisticallysignificant effects at P = 0.05, with a t-value of 3.151.This shows that the utilization of TRM is affected byfactors to do with organizational support such asactive participation and support from the manage-ment, the role of the TRM manager, participants andteam, and the responsibilities of TRM participantsand the team.

Research hypothesis 2 also showed statisticallysignificant effects on the mediation variable at thelevel of P = 0.001, with a t-value of 6.793. Thisshows that the utilization of TRM is facilitated by aneffective TRM process that normalizes and standard-izes processes, integrates these with the socialaspects of roadmapping, and establishes criteria andsuitable documents for roadmap component selec-tion. Hypothesis 2 is thus highly supported. Further,the research hypothesis for using appropriate soft-ware, hypothesis 4, showed statistically significant

effects at a level of P = 0.001, with a t-value of 8.240.This shows that the utilization of TRM is facilitatedby the provision of appropriate software of a highlevel of usefulness and effectiveness, designed to beuser-friendly for both novice and advanced users,which further offers the information and knowledgeusers need.

The results of hypothesis 4 also demonstrate sta-tistically significant positive effects on the utilizationof TRM at a level of P = 0.05, with a t-value of 2.292.This shows that TRM utilization is facilitated whenthe situation and objectives of the company are takeninto consideration in the planning stage of TRM,when the company’s situation and organizationalrequirements are clearly reflected in roadmapping,and when the linkages between business and R&Dstrategy likewise factor into roadmapping.

According to the standardized regression coeffi-cients, the most influential factor for the utilization ofTRM is appropriate software, followed by an effec-tive roadmap process, organizational support, andthen alignment with the company’s objectives.

To test the hypothesis that the utilization of TRMsaffects R&D performance, regression analysis wasconducted as shown in Table 5.

Our hypothesis that ‘high utilization of TRM haspositive effects on R&D performance’ showed statis-tically significant effects at level of P = 0.001, with at-value of 10.954. This shows that the utilization ofTRM helps improve R&D performance, supportingresearch hypothesis 5.

To verify the mediating effect of TRM utilizationbetween the factors influencing utilization and R&Dperformance, the study used the mediated regression

Table 4. Multiple regression analysis for utilization of technology roadmapping

Unstandardizedregression coefficient

Standardizedregression coefficient

t-value P-value

(Constant) 0.177 0.808 0.420

Organizational support 0.172 0.164** 3.151 0.002

Effective roadmap process 0.277 0.350*** 6.793 0.000

Appropriate software 0.393 0.372*** 8.240 0.000

Alignment with company objective 0.120 0.134** 2.292 0.023

F = 122.199 (P = 0.000), R2 = 0.663, adjusted R2 = 0.658, *P < 0.10, **P < 0.05, ***P < 0.001.Dependent variable: utilization of TRM

Table 5. Regression analysis for utilization of technology roadmapping and research and development performance

Unstandardizedregression coefficient

Standardizedregression coefficient

t-value P-value

(Constant) 1.765 7.535 0.000

Utilization of TRM 0.535 0.569*** 10.954 0.000

F = 119.985 (P = 0.000), R2 = 0.323 Adjusted R2 = 0.321, *P < 0.10, **P < 0.05, ***P < 0.001



approach proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986). Thisanalysis confirms a mediating effect via a three-stageregression analysis. In the first stage, regressionmethods analyzed the relationship between the inde-pendent variable and the mediating variable, and inthe second stage, the relationship between the inde-pendent and dependent variable was analyzed.Lastly, in the third stage, regression of the independ-ent, mediating, and dependent variables was under-taken. Results of this three-stage regression analysisconfirm the mediating effect when they satisfy thefollowing four conditions. To begin with, the firstregression analysis must indicate that the independ-ent variable significantly affects the mediating vari-able. Then the second regression analysis mustindicate that the independent variable significantlyaffects the dependent variable. Also, the mediatingvariable must significantly affect the dependent vari-able. Finally, the regression coefficient for the impactof the independent variable at the second stageshould be greater than that for the third stage. Inaddition, a distinction between complete mediationand partial mediation can be understood as follows: if

the impact of the independent variable on thedependent variable is not significant when the medi-ating variable is controlled at the third stage regres-sion analysis, there is a complete regression; if it issignificant, regression is partial.

Table 6 shows the result of analyzing the mediat-ing effect of TRM utilization between the factorsinfluencing roadmap utilization and firms’ R&D per-formance. This result suggests that TRM utilizationhas mediating effects between the factors influencingthe utilization and R&D performance. In addition, aTRM’s alignment with company objectives displayscomplete mediation effects, while the other inde-pendent variables such as organizational support, aneffective roadmap process, and appropriate softwareshow partial mediation effects. This means thatorganizational support and an effective process forroadmapping affect R&D support not only throughthe fact of TRM utilization but also directly withoutmediation as well (partial mediation). Lastly, appro-priate software affects the R&D performance boththrough its impact on TRM utilization and directly(partial mediation).

Table 6. Mediating effects of the utilization of technology roadmapping (TRM)

Mediatingvariable

Independentvariable

Dependent variable Mediatingeffect

R&D performance Mediation conditionsatisfied?

Stage Regressioncoefficient

P-value 1 2 3 4

Utilizationof TRM

Organizationalsupport

1 0.635 0.000 � Partialmediation2 0.483 0.000 �

3 (mediating) 0.439 0.000 �

3 (independent) 0.204 0.002 �

R2 = 0.348, F = 66.826, P = 0.000

Alignment withcompanyobjectives

1 0.648 0.000 � Completemediation2 0.369 0.000 �

3 (mediating) 0.568 0.000 �

3 (independent) 0.000 0.995 �

R2 = 0.323, F = 59.753, P = 0.000

Effectiveroadmapprocess


3 (mediating) 0.373 0.000 �

3 (independent) 0.296 0.000 �

R2 = 0.373, F = 74.324, P = 0.000

Appropriatesoftware


3 (mediating) 0.406 0.000 �

3 (independent) 0.248 0.000 �

R2 = 0.359, F = 69.860, P = 0.000




6. Conclusion and implications

6.1. Research results and implications

This study aimed to analyze the factors influencingthe utilization of TRMs and to observe their correla-tion to determine their influence on TRM take-up. Itthen examined the effect of these factors behind com-panies’ development of TRM on their R&D perform-ance. By empirically analyzing and confirming thepositive influence of TRM utilization on R&D per-formance, this study stressed the significant role ofTRM across various functions of organizations.

The result of the analysis revealed that the utiliza-tion of TRM is most significantly influenced byappropriate software, an effective roadmap process,organizational support, and the map’s alignment withcompany objectives. All these factors have a signifi-cant effect on whether companies persist with theutilization of TRM. Results also showed that utiliza-tion of TRMs results in a better R&D performance.In addition, the utilization of TRM was found to actas a mediator between R&D performance and inde-pendent variables. Alignment with company objec-tives was shown to have a complete mediation effecton R&D (because this term could only pertain to aroadmap), while organizational support, an effectiveroadmap process, and appropriate software influ-enced performance indirectly. These research find-ings can suggest how practitioners can improve theirR&D performance by using TRM. The implicationsof this study are as follows, at least for situations forwhich the survey sample is representative:

First, developing an appropriate software tool tosupport TRM was found to be more significant thanany other factor in terms of impact on TRM utiliza-tion. This can be attributed to the data and knowledgemanagement demands of developing and sustainingan effective roadmapping process, particularly forcomplex products and within large organizations(Lupini, 2002; Phaal et al., 2005; Cho et al., 2009).Roadmaps need to be updated on a regular basis andinvolve inputs from many experts from a range ofbusiness functions including manufacturing, market-ing, and sales (Bruce and Fine, 2004; Petrick andEchols, 2004; Lee and Park, 2005). Our researchfindings, at least for Korean firms, imply that a cus-tomized software tool for TRMs can play an impor-tant role in increasing firms’ level of TRMutilization, as tools provide a systematic way tokeeping roadmaps alive in large organizations.

Second, an effective roadmap process is an impor-tant factor in the utilization of TRM, highlighting theimportance of implementing effective post-TRMmanagement processes for roadmaps that respond to

technological or business change (Phaal et al., 2004).Because the main direct outputs from roadmappingactivities tend to be decisions and actions, the cred-ibility of the process and its longer term sustainabil-ity will depend on those decisions and actions beingtaken forward, with the support of senior manage-ment in an organization. In designing such roadmap-ping processes, it is critical for an organization toincorporate planning activities in its mapping andfully to engage cross-functional participants (Cosneret al., 2007; Daim and Oliver, 2008). When TRMworks effectively as a standardized communicationtool for projecting future technologies, it can lead asignificant process of change across an organization,increasing TRM take-up across the company.

Third, the degree of alignment of a TRM withcompany objectives can positively influence the like-lihood of its being utilized, with a further positivemediating effect on R&D performance. This is notsurprising, as research and business processes such asroadmapping will only have any impact if the outputsfrom these activities are of strategic significance andof interest to senior management in serving businessunit and corporate goals. Our research findings alsosuggest that continuous efforts in aligning TRM proc-esses and corporate strategic plans are required.These can prove effective in incorporating strategicconcerns within the roadmap development processes,as Gerdsri et al. (2010) and Radnor and Peterson(1999) have suggested. To improve their alignmentcapability for TRM, firms need to acknowledge thecritical aspect of setting the right governance struc-ture for TRMs in which clear roles and responsibili-ties are defined. Engaging the right people fordeveloping and managing a TRM with a clear objec-tive will be critical and positively affect firms’ gen-eration of a higher quality of roadmaps.

Lastly, R&D performance can be improved by uti-lizing a TRM, while it also benefits from mapping’spartial mediating effects for the other three independ-ent factors. Improving the effectiveness of investmentin R&D is one of the core motivations for developingroadmapping in companies, in terms of achieving abetter alignment of research with product and busi-ness needs, speeding up product and service develop-ments, increasing business agility in responding totechnological change, avoiding duplication, andimproving project work synergies. Roadmapping mayfurther improve R&D performance through othermeans such as process enhancement and supportingorganizational restructuring and the transformationof organizational cultures. TRM may thus offer arational option for companies seeking to get morefrom their R&D.As a technology planning method forexploring future directions and technological alterna-



tives in the face of uncertain demand, TRM can bekey in developing mid- to long-term technologicalstrategies that can secure firms future technologicalalternatives by prioritizing certain technological inno-vations. In this context, maps can inform managers oflikely future developments and point up the limita-tions of current technology. TRMs provide informa-tion about plans’ likelihood of success based on afirm’s current technological level. They can also inthis way come up with agile contingency plans.

6.2. Research limitations and futureresearch directions

The conclusions of this research can only be consid-ered valid for situations for which the survey sampleis representative. The focus of the study was on theperceptions of predominantly technology-orientedstaff in large technology-intensive Korean firms thathave implemented technology roadmapping in anR&D management context. The survey was onlyconducted for firms currently using TRM and ex-cluded companies that had discontinued roadmap-ping. It would be interesting to know why some firmsstopped using roadmaps. This could be the theme ofa subsequent study.

This study derived only a few out of many factorswith high-level constructs that can influence TRMutilization. Part of the reason for the study’s observ-ing this limitation was that this work represents thefirst attempt to analyze the determinant factorsbehind TRM utilization. Detailed constructed vari-ables with measurement items can be further devel-oped for future study. For instance, future researchstudy could consider how roadmapping might valu-ably influence the timing of investments or help todecompose complex technological systems into com-ponents intended to be reused. In addition, analysisof different types of industries or business strategiescould reveal differences in the pattern and causes ofTRM usage. The results of this study cannot thusnecessarily be generalized across all cases. However,the research demonstrates the utility of a method foraddressing these issues. Further work would beneeded to expand the scope of the study to includeadditional factors based on the existing (or anadapted) theoretical framework for observing howTRM impacts on a firm’s performance.

Of the R&D performance measures based on theBSC framework, the financial perspective and thecustomer perspectives were not evaluated. Due tothe characteristics of the questionnaire respondents,only the internal business perspective and the innova-tion and learning perspective formed any part of ourdata-collection method, which aimed only to elicit

companies’ internal (perceptions of) their R&D per-formance. This study did not assess R&D perform-ance from the financial perspective (by evaluatingobjective data) nor from the customer perspective(by evaluating the satisfaction of internal and ex-ternal R&D project customers). Better results couldbe achieved by assessing R&D performance fromvarious perspectives, for instance, by looking at suchobjective phenomena as R&D success rates, the salesof existing and new products, and levels of customersatisfaction. Including the views of other stakeholdersinvolved, such as marketing or manufacturing repre-sentatives would also be beneficial in further qualify-ing the effectiveness of roadmaps. Further work couldalso address the question of the time period neededfor roadmapping to affect a firm’s R&D performance.This issue could be tackled by a longitudinal study ofone firm or a small population of firms.

Lastly, roadmapping can take various forms interms of its focus, scope, structure, and process,depending on firms’ business goals, processes, struc-ture, and culture. However, our samples were notclassified by different types of TRM because thesurvey specifically requested responses from thosealready working with TRM. Hence, further work isneeded to better understand the organizationalcontext into which the utilization of specific road-maps fit and how this influences the format and uti-lization of roadmapping and indeed the selection ofdifferent roadmap types.

References

Adler, P.S. (1989) Technology strategy: a guide to theliteratures. Research in Technological Innovation, Man-agement and Policy, 4, 25–151.

Albright, R.E. and Kappel, T.A. (2003) Roadmapping inthe corporation. Research Technology Management, 42,2, 31–40.

Allan, A., Edenfeld, D., Joyner H., Jr, Kahng, B., Rodgers,M., and Zorian, Y. (2001) Technology roadmap for semi-conductors. Computer, 35, 1, 42–53.

Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986) The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychologicalresearch: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considera-tions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51,6, 1173–1182.

Beeton, D.A. (2007) Exploratory roadmapping for sectorforesight. PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge.

Beeton, D.A., Phaal, R., and Probert, D.R. (2008) Explora-tory roadmapping for foresight. International Journal ofTechnology Intelligence and Planning, 4, 4, 398–412.

Berman, M., Boyack, K.W., and Wesenberg, D.L. (1996)Biomedical technology prosperity game (tm). Albu-querque, NM: Sandia National Labs., Report NumberSAND961627, July, 231.




Bitondo, D. and Frohman, A. (1981) Linking technologicaland business planning. Research Management, 24, 6,19–23.

Bray, O.H. and Garcia, M.L. (1997) Technology roadmap-ping: the integration of strategic and technology plan-ning for competitiveness. Innovation in TechnologyManagement – The Key to Global Leadership. PIC-MET′97: Portland International Conference on Manage-ment and Technology, 25–28.

Bruce, E.J. and Fine, C.H. (2004) Technology roadmap-ping: mapping a future for integrated photonics. InvitedTutorial, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, accessedonline 5th February 2006 at http://www.hbs.edu/units/tom/seminars/2004/fine-5-Tech_Rdmap.pdf

Burgelman, R.A. and Rosenbloom, R.S. (1989) Technol-ogy strategy: an evolutionary process perspective.Research on Technological Innovation, Managementand Policy, 4, 1–23.

Cho, S.-Y., Lee, J.-H., Ham, J.-Y., Lee, H.-J., and Kim,H.-I. (2009) A proposal of the technology roadmappingprocess for the public domain TRM development: a casestudy of u-City. Journal of the Korea Society of IT Serv-ices, 8, 2, 89–115.

Comrey, A.L. (1973) A First Course in Factor Analysis.New York: Academic Press.

Cooper, R.G. and Edgett, S.J. (2009) Product Innovationand technology strategy. Product Development Institute.ISBN: 1-4392-5224-6.

Cosner, R.R., Hynds, E.J., Fusfeld, A.R., Loweth, C.V.,Scouten, C., and Albright, R. (2007) Integrating road-mapping into technical planning. Research TechnologyManagement, 50, 6, 31–48.

Daim, T.U. and Oliver, T. (2008) Implementing technologyroadmap process in the energy services sector: a casestudy of a government agency. Technological Forecast-ing and Social Change, 75, 5, 687–720.

EIRMA. (1997) Technology roadmapping: delivery busi-ness vision. Euro. Ind. Res. Manage. Assoc., Paris,France, Working Group rep. no. 52.

Farrukh, C., Phaal, R., and Probert, D.R. (2003) Technol-ogy roadmapping: linking technology resources intobusiness planning. International Journal of TechnologyManagement, 26, 1, 2–19.

Fujii, M. and Ikawa, Y. (2008) The development of simpli-fied technology roadmapping for use by Japanese chemi-cal companies. Portland International Center forManagement of Engineering and Technology (PICMET)Conference, 27–31 July, Cape Town, South Africa, pp.2150–2158.

Fukuda, K., Watanabe, M., Korenaga, M., and Seimaru, K.(2008) The progress of the strategic technology roadmapof METI (Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry ofJapan): practical business cases and sustainable manu-facturing perspective. Portland International Center forManagement of Engineering and Technology (PICMET)Conference, 27–31 July, Cape Town, South Africa, pp.2102–2114.

Garcia, M.L. and Bray, O.H.E. (1997) Fundamentals oftechnology roadmapping. Sandia National Laboratories,

Report SAND97-0665. http://www.sandia.gov/PHMCOE/pdf/Sandia%27sFundamentalsofTech.pdf.

Gerdsri, N. and Assakul, P. (2007) Key success factors forinitiating technology roadmapping (TRM) process: acase study of a leading Thai firm. ASIA Pacific Academyof Management and Business Conference (APAMB),Singapore.

Gerdsri, N., Assakul, P., and Vatananan, R.S. (2010) Anactivity guideline for technology roadmapping imple-mentation. Technology Analysis and Strategic Manage-ment, 22, 2, 229–242.

Gerdsri, N., Vatananan, R.S., and Dansamasatid, S. (2009)Dealing with the dynamics of technology roadmappingimplementation: a case study. Technological Forecast-ing and Social Change, 76, 1, 50–60.

Gindy, N.N.Z., Cerit, B., and Hodgson, A. (2006) Tech-nology roadmapping for the next generation manufac-turing enterprise. Journal of Manufacturing TechnologyManagement, 17, 4, 404–416.

Grinnell, M., Richey, J., and McQueen, E. (2002) Casestudy: innovation roadmapping using enterprise automa-tion software. Motorola White Paper, 14th June, andInternational Society for Professional Innovation Man-agement (ISPIM), Newsletter, November, 6–7.

Groenveld, P. (2007) Roadmapping integrates business andtechnology. Research-Technology Management, 50, 6,49–58.

Kajikawa, Y., Usui, O., Hakata, K., Yasunaga, Y., andMatsushima, K. (2008) Structure of knowledge in thescience and technology roadmaps. Technological Fore-casting and Social Change, 75, 1, 1–11.

Kanama, D., Kondo, A., and Yokoo, Y. (2008) Develop-ment of technology foresight: integration of technologyroadmapping and the Delphi method. InternationalJournal of Technology Intelligence and Planning, 4, 2,184–200.

Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996) The BalancedScorecard: Translating Strategy into Action. HarvardBusiness School Press, Cambridge MA.

Kappel, T.A. (1998) Technology roadmapping: an evalua-tion. Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern Univ., Evanston,IL.

Kappel, T.A. (2001) Perspectives on roadmaps: howorganizations talk about the future. Journal of ProductManagement, 18, 39–50.

Kerssens-van Drongelen, I.C., and Cooke, A. (1997)Design principles for the development of measurementsystems for research and development processes. R&DManagement, 27, 4, 345–357.

Kim, B. (2006) Technology roadmapping: R&D planningcoordination between component supplier-system inte-grator. IEEE International Conference on Managementof Innovation and Technology, 2, 1004–1009.

Kostoff, R.N. and Schaller, R.R. (2001) Science and tech-nology roadmaps. IEEE Transactions on EngineeringManagement, 48, 2, 132–143.

Kostoff, R.N., Boylan, R., and Simons, G.R. (2004) Dis-ruptive technology roadmaps. Technological Forecast-ing and Social Change, 71, 141–159.



Lee, S., Kang, S., Park, Y.S., and Park, Y. (2007) Technol-ogy roadmapping for R&D planning: the case of theKorean parts and materials industry. Technovation, 27,8, 433–445.

Lee, S. and Park, Y. (2005) Customization of technologyroadmaps according to roadmapping purposes: overallprocess and detailed modules. Technological Forecast-ing and Social Change, 72, 567–583.

Lee, S., Yoon, B., and Park, Y. (2008) Web-based supportingsystem for technology roadmap. International Journal ofTechnology Intelligence and Planning, 4, 2, 165–183.

Lopez-Ortega, E., Concepcion, T.A., and Viloria, B. (2006)Strategic planning, technology roadmaps and technol-ogy intelligence: an integrated approach. PICMET Pro-ceedings, 8–13 July, Istanbul, Turkey, 27–33.

Lupini, S. (2002) Roadmapping software survey report.White Paper, Cambridge University, 21st June.

McKeen, J.D. and Smith, H.A. (2006) Developments inpractice XXIII: creating and evolving a technologyroadmap. Communications of the Association for Infor-mation Systems, 18, Article 21. Available at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol18/iss1/21

McMillan, A. (2003) Roadmapping – agent of change.Research Technology Management, 46, 2, 40–47.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978) Psychometric Theory, 2nd edn. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

Petrick, I.J. and Echols, A.E. (2004) Technology roadmap-ping in review: a tool for making sustainable newproduct development decisions. Technological Forecast-ing and Social Change, 71, 1–2, 81–100.

Phaal, R., Farrukh, C., Mitchell, R., and Probert, D. (2003)Starting-up roadmapping fast. IEEE Engineering Man-agement Review, 31, 3, 54–54.

Phaal, R., Farrukh, C.J.P., and Probert, D.R. (2004) Tech-nology roadmapping-planning framework for evolutionand revolution. Technological Forecasting and SocialChange, 71, 1–2, 5–26.

Phaal, R., Farrukh, C.J.P., and Probert, D.R. (2005) Devel-oping a technology roadmapping system. Portland Inter-national Conference on Management of Engineeringand Technology (PICMET), Portland, USA, 31 July–4August, 99–111.

Phaal, R., Farrukh, C.J.P., and Probert, D.R. (2006) Tech-nology management tools: generalization, integrationand configuration. International Journal of Innovationand Technology Management, 3, 3, 321–339.

Phaal, R. and Muller, G. (2009) An architectural frame-work for roadmapping: towards visual strategy. Techno-logical Forecasting and Social Change, 76, 1, 39–49.

Porter, M.E. (1980) Competitive Strategy Techniques forAnalyzing Industries and Competitors. New York: FreePress.

Probert, D. and Radnor, M. (2003) Frontier experiencesfrom industry-academia consortia. Research TechnologyManagement, March–April, 27–30.

Probert, D. and Shehabuddeen, N. (1999) Technologyroadmapping: the issues of managing technologychange. International Journal of Technology Manage-ment, 17, 6, 646–661.

Radnor, M. and Peterson, J.W. (1999) Aligning strategyand technology using roadmaps: emerging lessons fromthe NCMS ‘MATI’ project. Portland International Con-ference on Management of Engineering and Technology(PICMET), Portland, USA, 25–29 July, 28–36.

Radnor, M. and Probert, D. (2004) Technology roadmap-ping. Research Technology Management, 47, 24–37.

Richey, J. (2001) Motorola. Personal Communication.Rinne, M. (2004) Technology roadmaps: infrastructure

for innovation. Technological Forecasting and SocialChange, 71, 67–80.

Saritas, O. and Aylen, J. (2010) Using scenarios for road-mapping: the case of clean production. TechnologicalForecasting and Social Change, 77, 7, 1061–1075.

Straub, D. (1989) Validating instruments in MIS research.MIS Quarterly, 13, 2, 147–169.

Walsh, S.T. (2004) Roadmapping a disruptive technology:a case study the emerging micro-systems and top-downnano-systems industry. Technological Forecasting andSocial Change, 71, 1–2, 161–185.

Walsh, S.T., Boylan, R., McDermott, C., and Paulson, A.(2005) The semiconductor silicon industry roadmap:epochs driven by the dynamics between disruptive tech-nologies and core competencies. Technological Fore-casting and Social Change, 72, 2, 213–236.

Wells, R., Phaal, R., Farrukh, C., and Probert, D. (2004)Technology roadmapping for a service organization.Research Technology Management, 47, 2, 46–51.

Whalen, P.J. (2007) Strategic and technology planning on aroadmapping foundation. Research Technology Man-agement, 50, 3, 40–51.

Willyard, C.H. and McClees, C.W. (1987) Motorola’s tech-nology roadmap process. Research Management, 30, 5,13–19.

Zweck, A. and Holtmannspotter, D. (2009) Technologyroadmapping: turning hype into a systematic process.International Journal of Technology Intelligence andPlanning, 5, 1, 55–72.

Jung Hoon Lee is currently an Assistant Professor atthe Graduate School of Information (GSI), YonseiUniversity, Seoul, Korea. He received his B.Eng/MSc in Electronic Engineering/Information SystemsEngineering and MSc in Information Systems fromUniversity of Manchester and London School ofEconomics, respectively. He obtained his PhD inManufacturing Engineering and Management fromthe Institute for Manufacturing, University of Cam-bridge, United Kingdom. Prior to joining the GSI,His current research interests include performancemanagement in technology management, technologyroadmapping and forecasting, and simulation mod-eling in technological innovation.

Rob Phaal joined the Centre for Technology Man-agement at the University of Cambridge in 1997,




where he conducts research in strategic technologymanagement. Areas of interest include managementprocesses, frameworks, and tools, with a particularfocus on technology roadmapping and evaluation.Rob has a mechanical engineering background, witha doctorate in computational modeling and industrialexperience in technical consulting, contract research,and software development.

Chi-Hoon Lee is a MSc student at the GSI, YonseiUniversity, Seoul, Korea. He earned his BSc in Man-agement Information Systems from Yonsei Univer-sity. He worked in Samsung Economic ResearchInstitute as a research analyst. His research interestsinclude R&D governance, technology management,innovation strategy and management, and serviceinnovation.

Appendix A

Reliability of measurement instrument (Cronbach’s alphas for each measure)

Construct Item Cronbach’s a

Organizational support 4 0.836

Effective roadmap process 3 0.814

Appropriate software 4 0.907

Alignment with company objective 3 0.748

Utilization of TRM 6 0.899

R&D Performance 5 0.848

Appendix B

Validity of measurement instruments (rotated component matrix)

Measurement item Component (factor loading)

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6

Organizational support 2 (role of roadmap manager) 0.8306 0.1528 0.1646 0.0946 0.2005 0.0981

Organizational support 3 (competence of roadmapparticipants/team)

0.7147 0.2586 0.3104 0.1821 0.0897 0.0144

Organizational support 4 (responsibility of roadmapparticipants/team)

0.6293 0.3860 0.2759 0.1784 0.0706 0.0518

Organizational support 1 (senior management commitment/support)

0.6247 0.0739 0.1743 0.1445 0.2186 0.4578

Effective roadmap process 1 (normalization andstandardization)

0.1998 0.6361 0.1561 0.1641 0.2355 0.2956

Effective roadmap process 2 (integrated with the humanaspects of roadmapping)

0.4096 0.6691 0.1742 0.1289 0.3312 0.1688

Effective roadmap process 3 (criteria and appropriatedocumentation for roadmap component selection)

0.3040 0.6597 0.3100 0.1378 0.2717 0.2281

Appropriate software 2 (facility software should cater forboth novice and advanced users)

0.1551 0.1854 0.8247 0.1883 0.0987 0.0675

Appropriate software 3 (required data/information/knowledge available)

0.3366 0.1047 0.8065 0.1179 -0.0440 0.0522

Appropriate software 1 (availability) 0.2017 0.2673 0.7818 0.1431 0.0155 0.0665

Appropriate software 4 (integrity) 0.3172 0.2363 0.7570 0.0898 0.0189 0.0381

Alignment with company objective 3 (linkages betweenbusiness and R&D strategy)

-0.0055 0.1891 0.1673 0.7406 0.1549 0.2452

Alignment with company objective 1 (aligning thecapabilities of the roadmapping method with businessgoals and context)

0.0230 0.3290 0.0984 0.7477 0.2907 -0.1218

Alignment with company objective 2 (tailored process tothe specific needs of the firm and its business context)

0.2324 0.3431 0.0804 0.7309 0.2126 -0.0895

Utilization of TRM (organizational communication) 0.2237 0.2236 0.1935 0.1915 0.7518 0.1617



Appendix B (Contd.)Measurement item Component (factor loading)

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6

Utilization of TRM (supporting strategy) 0.0330 0.2354 0.2020 0.2705 0.7514 0.1160

Utilization of TRM (consensus about a set of needs andtechnologies)

0.2124 0.3839 0.0894 0.0848 0.7249 0.0624

Utilization of TRM (framework for thinking about strategicplanning in the business)

0.0111 0.2702 0.2676 0.2464 0.6469 0.3465

Utilization of TRM (common framework) 0.2256 0.3321 0.1443 0.1798 0.6438 -0.0183

Utilization of TRM (investment decision making) 0.1623 0.3015 0.3022 0.1124 0.6432 0.3041

R&D Performance (innovation and learning perspective 1) 0.1924 0.1869 0.2552 0.2592 0.0290 0.7383


R&D Performance (internal business perspective 2) 0.4008 0.1417 0.1840 0.1604 (0.0568 0.7082


R&D Performance (internal business perspective 1) 0.5470 0.1856 0.0650 0.0797 (0.0319 0.6670

Percentage of variance explained (%) 44.262 7.867 6.959 5.228 3.634 3.432

Cumulative percentage (%) 44.262 52.129 59.088 64.316 67.950 71.382

Extraction method: principal component analysis.Rotation method: varimax; Kaiser normalization.

Appendix C

Questionnaire

Part 1: TRM (technology roadmap) level 1 questionnaire

No Statement

1 The management provides lots of attention and support to the technology roadmap.

2 The role of the technology roadmap planner/manager is clearly defined.

3 The technology roadmap user’s expertise and understanding is high.

4 The technology roadmap user’s responsibility and duty is clearly defined.

5 The company provides effective education and motivation to use technology roadmaps.

6 The technology roadmap is standardized across the board.

7 The technology roadmap is developed in consideration of all the human resources of the company.

8 Clear selection criteria for components of the technology roadmap are clearly documented.

9 The concreteness of the technology roadmap process has been verified.

10 The technology roadmap process is being reviewed and revised to keep it updated.

11 An operating system and software are appropriately used for management and utilization of the technologyroadmap.

12 The technology roadmap operating system and software provide the necessary data, information, and knowledge.

13 The technology roadmap operating system and software are friendly for beginners to advanced users alike.

14 The technology roadmap operating system and operating software are secure and complete.

15 The operating system and software are easy to revise according to changes to the technology roadmap.

16 In the planning process for the technology roadmap, the situations and goal of the company was considered indeciding on application areas of the technology roadmap.

17 The technology roadmap process is developed in a way that clearly reflects the company’s situations andorganizational goal.

18 The technology roadmap is developed in consideration of the business strategies and the R&D strategies.

19 The business strategies and the R&D strategies were developed in consideration of the needs of the customers andthe market, products and services, technologies, etc.

20 Technological resources are regarded as essential elements in developing business strategies and spotting futuremarket opportunities




Part 2: TRM (technology roadmap) level 2 questionnaire

No Statement

1 The investment decision makers make their R&D investment decisions based on the technology roadmap.

2 The technology roadmap is facilitating cooperation in decision making within the organization.

3 The technology roadmap is used in deciding what areas of R&D need investment.

4 The technology roadmap is used in seeking agreement on business requirements.

5 The technology roadmap is used in deciding on technologies for responding to business requirements.

6 The technology roadmap provides a common guide for the entire organization.

7 The technology roadmap provides the mechanism and framework that can facilitate planning and development ofadvanced technologies.

8 The technology roadmap provides opportunities to share knowledge and information.

9 The technology roadmap facilitates communication within the organization.

10 The technology roadmap is communicated with other constituents in the work process (including outside firms).

11 The technology roadmap is used in establishing the organizational vision.

12 The technology roadmap is leading the strategy execution process.

13 The technology roadmap provides the framework that can be used in reviewing business strategies and plans.

14 The technology roadmap is used in evaluating future technological developments.

15 The technology roadmap is used in assessing the levels of the core technologies and the existing technologies.

Part 3: TRM level 3 questionnaire

No Statement

1 The R&D success rate has improved.

2 The new products are selling better than the previous ones.

3 The R&D activities contributed to improving the market share.

4 The time spent on each project of the R&D activity has become shorter.

5 The time taken until a product launch has become shorter than the estimated time (development time).

6 The proportion of the time spent on revising a project in the R&D activity has become shorter.

7 There are fewer re-works (e.g. debugging and specification changes).

8 There are more inventions that can be patented.

9 More portion of the R&D budget is allocated to basic and applied research.

10 More projects are done in collaboration with outside institutes/companies.

11 More ideas are applied to new projects.

12 Customer satisfaction with products or services has been raised.

13 More projects are initiated by customers.

14 Debugging time after the launch of a product or service has become shorter.

15 More projects are getting done ahead of their scheduled deadlines.

Questions on general information

Directions: This part asks questions about the respondent’s general information.

1. What is your company’s business area? ( )

� Finance/Banking � Communication � Petroleum/Chemical� Electric/Electronic � IT � Construction � Still Manufacture� Public, State-run Company � Retail/Logistics � Heavy Industry� Other ( )

2. What department are you working in? ( )



3. What is your position? ( )

� Executive � General Manager � Deputy Manager� Section Manager � Assistant Manager or Lower � Other ( )

4. How long have you been working for the company? ( )

� Shorter than 2 years � Between 2 and 5 years � Between 5 and 8 years� Between 8 and 10 years � Between 10 and 15 years � Longer than 15 years.

5. How many employees does your company have? ( )

� Fewer than 50 � Between 50 and 100 � Between 100 and 500� Between 500 and 1,000 � More than 1,000

6. What is your company’s total asset value? ( )

� Less than KRW10B � Between KRW10 and 20B � Between KRW20 and 50B� Between KRW50 and 100B � More than 100B

7. What is your company’s total revenue? ( )

� Less than KRW1B � Between 1 and 5B � Between 5B and 10B� Between 10 and 20B � Between 20 and 100B � More than 100B

8. How big is your company’s R&D staff? ( )

� Fewer than 10 � Between 10 and 50 � Between 50 and 100� Between 100 and 500 � More than 500

9. This question is about your company’s annual budget allocation for R&DAnnual R&Dbudget = ( ) % of the total annual revenue

� Less than 1% � Between 1% and 3% � Between 3% and 5%� Between 5% and 10% � More than 10% � Other ( )

Questions regarding use of TRM (technology roadmap)

Directions: This part is comprised of questions about the use of your company’s TRM.

10. How does your company develop a TRM (technology roadmap)? ( )

� By inside staff (Dedicated team, TFT) � Outsourcing (Experts, Purchase)� By inside staff with outside help � Other ( )

11. What references did your company use in developing the TRM (technology roadmap)? ( )

� International Industry/Association � Korean Industry/Association� Government/Public organizations of an advanced country� Korean government/public organizations � Leading non-Korean company� Leading Korean company � Non-Korean consulting firm� Korean consulting firm � Other ( )

12. What is your company’s purpose of using a TRM (technology roadmap)? (multiple choiceallowed) ( )

� To predict future technological trends and identify promising technologies.� To examine and assess the leading companies’ technological developments.� To develop R&D plans and strategies.� To allocate resources to technological developments and manage them.� To create a network of outside experts.� To find technological partners.� To come up with ideas about new products




13. What department(s) has/have been involved in developing the TRM? (Please list all businessunits) ( )

14. What department(s) is/are responsible for developing the TRM? (Please list business unit)( )

15. What department(s) mainly use(s) the TRM? (Multiple Answers Allowed) ( )

16. What is your opinion about your company’s TRM? (You can skip this question if you want)( )

17. How long your company has been using TRM and how regularly your company updates?( )



An empirical analysis of the determinants of technology ...

Documents

Transcript of An empirical analysis of the determinants of technology ...